More knowledge sharing with Open Source

Why isn't Open Source Software making dramatic impact in the areas of enterprise knowledge management, knowledge sharing, and collaboration? Surely within a few organizations they have found a place in some capacity, but for the vast majority of others, the OSS offerings are viewed skeptically at best. Clearly there are stigma associated with both OSS and Knowledge Management. First, OSS is seen as dangerous, unsupported, and unsupportable. Knowledge Management and collaborative technologies are perceived as being difficult to justify and unlikely to be successful under most circumstances because knowledge cannot be managed. From a pure KM perspective there is a dearth of understanding with regard to what constitutes an essential feature, or group of features, in a knowledge sharing platform. Years of client interaction and product evaluation make one thing clear: there are a specific group of features (see below) that lend themselves to improving platform adoption and possess high utility regardless of organizational intricacy.

Alerts & Notifications

Analytics & Reporting

Configurable Taxonomies & Metadata

Expandable Content Types

Flexible UI

Multiple Search Options

Scalable Workflow

Template Design & Modification Workflow decidedly falls into this category and will be the center of exploration here. Independent of the aforementioned features, workflow capabilities are one of the most overlooked aspects of a knowledge sharing system; specifically whether it can support any number of workflows and accommodate a wide spectrum of complexity. The function of workflow whether in a content management or knowledge sharing system is the same, to ensure quality. Realistically, once knowledge transitions from thought to an electronic format, it becomes another form of content to be managed. Minimally content, and in this case knowledge, should use a workflow to enforce the 4C's (Clear, Concise, Complete, and Correct). This will improve readability, assist the retention of context, and preserve the asset's overall value. Workflow serves several other vital functions that deserve mention. First, a well designed workflow minimizes the individual effort, one person does not need to author, edit, and finalize a shared asset. Second, the natural distribution of knowledge, skills, and abilities within the workforce mean that quality and accuracy will be an issue for some percentage of the contributions. Here again workflow can compensate by ensuring more than one "set of eyes" has a chance to review the submission. When evaluating knowledge sharing platforms an easy assessment of its capabilities is whether or not its workflow handling is sufficient for the problem or process at hand. Each department/BU/LOB etc will want to approach the management of their intellectual assets differently, and use varying numbers of resources to guarantee its quality. Furthermore, what constitutes "good knowledge" can also depend on the audience that will be using it. Four common models for knowledge consumption are as follows: Standard (Internal to Internal), Service (Internal to External), Partner (External to Internal), and Communal (External to External). By using multiple workflows, any or all of the aforementioned knowledge sharing scenarios can be accommodated. More importantly, adequate workflow capabilities will allow intellectual assets for one audience to be used in another, creating opportunities for additional efficiency or advantage. Does this imply that an OSS content management system can be used as an effective knowledge sharing tool within the enterprise? The short answer is yes if the feature mix is optimal. Certainly, the knowledge sharing indoctrination process can be expedited when the configuration options are flexible enough to accommodate the vast majority of end-users. Of course the platforms that knowledge sharing systems run on are important as well, but they are rarely a consideration of the end-user, and they are not the focus here. To point, if asked to choose between the successful adoption and ongoing derivation of benefit from a successful knowledge sharing program, and an approved configuration, the decision making process becomes less mystifying. Finally, standardizing the display of knowledge assets is not equal to and should not be confused with standardizing workflow. Templates, taxonomies, and, metadata are all well served by standardization; they also have a tremendous impact on the "about-ness" of content, workflow generally does not. Ultimately, a system bound restriction to the number of available workflows serves only to reduce administrative overhead, which typically accounts for a very small percentage of the total program cost. However, accommodating the needs of the end user communities, through the configuration of multiple workflows, is critical to and accelerates the transformation to a knowledge sharing organization. In the end, 1 workflow is certainly not enough, and while 100 may be too many, it only seems that way now.